yang686526

asme y14.100 and asme y14.35m
two questions for everyone-
1- how many of you are actually adhering to these standards? please also mention if your organization is within an order of magnitude or so of $65m/yr and approx. 300 employees. (i have a theory that adherance to these standards is proportional to the size of the organization.)
2- if you are in compliance, to what extent did you "grandfather in" existing drawings at the time of implementation? also did you grandfather in your old drawings in perpetuity or only until the next revision? clause 4 in y14.35 requires that you must add the 'iaw asme y14.5' statement at the time of revision but i can find no other instructions in the standards.
i will appreciate the help folks!
john nabors
"against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - friedrich von schiller
my last company was about the size you wrote. we followed all standards and implemented them on older dwgs only when rev's as you mention.
my current job, we do it all, plus more. much bigger company.
chris
solidworks 06 5.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
the company i work for is a little over 200 employees and about $45m/yr. up to this point we have had a few standard practices but no concrete company standards and we follow the ansi y14.5m-1982 standard to the extent that any individual feels like doing so. as far as other standards go, you might as well just forget it.
i am working on changing that though and i just got done writing a company standard that follows y14.35 and y14.100 pretty close. i can't say that we will be following it to the letter but we are close.
david
quote (johnnabors):
(i have a theory that adherance to these standards is proportional to the size of the organization.)
i think their are a lot more variables that control/affect adherance to many standards. our company is $40m/160 employees and we follow the standards about 65% of the time. we have a lot of trible knowledge and people that have been here a long time.....those are the two hardest elements to change. i here this all the time when i'm trying to institute change "we have being doing it this way for 30 years". my response well now you're doing it wrong and here is how you should be doing things.
best regards,
heckler
sr. mechanical engineer
swx 2007 sp 2.0 & pro/e 2001
dell precision 370
p4 3.6 ghz, 1gb ram
xp pro sp2.0
nvidia quadro fx 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)
never argue with an idiot. they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.
my company is larger than your minimum criteria. eighteen months ago, a new engineering manager hired 4 senior (i.e. old)designers and engineers (and eng-tips contributor kenat--not so old)with strong military and standards backrounds, to set up and establish ansi/asme and cad standards. before that, this company had no company standards, no gd&t, and rudimentary formats that were tailored both format and tolerance wise at the individual engineers' whim. moreover, this company designs and builds inspection devices and microscopes that view at the nano level, and must maintain tolerances to a few microns.

within four months, we set up and established ansi/asme standards to y14.100, y14.35, and y14.5m, and ran training classes on gd&t.
we set up a policy that all new designs will meet the new standards, and all redesigns to solve design problems will go through dfma and gd&t analysis and reworked/redesigned components and their related parts will use gd&t and new formats iaw y14.100/y14.35.
as of today, the designers of one product line (who work for the aformentioned visionary manager) comply, and the rest of engineering (~55%)only comes to us when a design is in trouble, or serious manufacturing problems arise.
from our experience i think both company size and product complexity and maturity eventually force compliance with industry standards.
it is still a battle, since the "old guard" of the company assume we are trying to force military style standards on free thinking commercial engineers, but corporate has seen the positive results of our efforts in improving the product, and realizes that there are cost savings to be gained by our efforts, although they are often hard to define or document.
ron,
congrat's to you and your company for moving forward.
i tried the same at my last company. the biggest hurdle is keeping purchasing and marketing out of the process.
chris
solidworks 06 5.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
thanks ctopher, and amen to the problems of marketing, manufacturing, and sometimes purchasing getting into the design realm. we too have some of the problems madmango notes in yesterday's thread about parts changed purchase without being engineering apprised. we also introduces the "foreign" concept of socd's and altered item drawings with success, but not vid's (yet). mostly since we farm out all machining and much fabrication too, and the pdm system here assigns a company part number to every purchased part. here, the manufacturing bom is god, and drawings are just pictures.
we're about 250 employees, $80m a year. we follow about 80% of y14.100, 70% of y14.5m, and 80% of y14.35m. there's definately room for improvement. for me the scary standard is y14.41.
there are a lot of people still fighting the autocad switch to solid modeling, lots of bad habits to break. then there are the green cad users that still need to be trained in why a certain component should be modeled in a certain way. i doubt i'll see any compliance with y14.41 within the next 3-5yrs.
art without engineering is dreaming; engineering without art is calculating.
to it more confusing, major aerospace companies take those standards, list them as the standards to go by, then write their own based on the existing standards and go by both.
chris
solidworks 06 5.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
well as ron got me involved
1. our site which is the only one we鈥檝e had any impact in so far has around the number of employees you mention. however if i recall its turnover is much higher. we don鈥檛 yet across the board follow the standards, however the 5 of us in our group and our interns try.
2. for the most part our group try and grandfather in old drawings when we work on them for revision. we always put them on new formats to the standard, tidy up dimensioning, incorporate gd&t where possible, reword notes to be requirements not instructions etc. we tend to be a bit more lenient on what we let pass on revisions though, especially when to change it causes a lot of work. we鈥檝e gone through and revised a few packs primarily just to bring them up to standard but usually it鈥檚 things that needed revisions for another reason. others outside of our group don鈥檛 tend to bring old drawings up to standard though.
ctopher, we just submitted our design room manual for approval and we鈥檙e not a large aerospace place. we used it primarily to emphasize certain areas of the standards that we feel are particularly relevant and to clarify things in a few places where the standards leave it a bit open (replaced a few 鈥榮houlds鈥?with 鈥榮halls鈥?etc). we also included stuff on how to use our cad system to meet the standards etc and best known practices for model and drawing creation using our cad system.
as ron mentioned we鈥檙e being questioned again, i just put this in an email titled 鈥業n defense of industry design standards鈥?
quote:
industry design & drawing standards can be of significant advantage to an engineering company, they essentially define a standard "engineering language" and set of practices, customs, definitions etc.
use of them reduces reliance on informal "tribal knowledge" since they allow any competent engineer (or related position) to understand the data without ambiguity. this allows any engineer to work on future revision of the data with less chance of errors based on misunderstanding, it also supports verification (checking) of the data with less chance of time-consuming misunderstanding thus producing better quality data. it allows manufacture of the item defined by the data to be outsourced with minimal chance of misunderstanding. this then supports increased outsourcing to increase through put without increasing manufacturing overhead. it also allows competitive tendering from a number of suppliers rather than relying on one supplier that has built up tribal knowledge of the item, leading to cost reductions.
while many of the standards have their origins with the military their aim was and still is to allow maximum rate of production for the best value using multi sourcing and competitive tendering (especially during war time). this is equally applicable to commercial companies and the standards have now been widely accepted by industry and in fact most are no longer controlled by the government but by industry bodies.
i then went on to address a couple of contentious items in detail.
kenat-
with your permission i would like to quote your quote and show it to some folks here. please let me know if that is ok with you.
thanks-
john nabors
"against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - friedrich von schiller